Cadillac Owners Forum banner

FWB vs RM -- Interior Space

2K views 16 replies 7 participants last post by  caddycruiser 
#1 ·
Call me crazy, but I found the Roadmaster to have very meager interior space, at least in terms of leg room.

The front was barely passable and the back was not an option (at least for me, but it was my car and I never got back there). On the flip side, there was 2 ft. of space between the radiator and the bumper...and it had a "4 dead body" trunk.

Do FWBs have more interior space? I know they're about a foot longer than the RM (which kind of makes it moot for me as it won't fit in the garage), but I don't know where the foot of space is positioned. Hood? Front legroom? Rear legroom? Trunk?

It looks like they have more rear legroom than an RM, but it's kind of hard to tell from pics -- and there's no way to tell by looking regarding the front.

Thanks!
 
#2 ·
There's another 4-5 inches of rear legroom in the FWB's. The Brochures list the Buick as having 38.x inches, and the Cadillac lists it as having 43.x inches.

Truth be told, I never thought my Roadmaster had enough legroom in the rear seat either.
 
#3 ·
I have both cars.

The Roadmaster sedan has better leg room for the driver because the seat goes back farther than the Fleetwood.

The Fleetwood and Roadmaster wagon have the same rear leg room, but both suffer from the driver's seat not going back enough.

I am 6'1 and I could use another 3 inches of leg room in my Fleetwood driver's seat. I will remedy this when I put the custom Recaros in :thumbsup:
 
#6 ·
I have both cars.

The Roadmaster sedan has better leg room for the driver because the seat goes back farther than the Fleetwood.

The Fleetwood and Roadmaster wagon have the same rear leg room, but both suffer from the driver's seat not going back enough.

I am 6'1 and I could use another 3 inches of leg room in my Fleetwood driver's seat. I will remedy this when I put the custom Recaros in :thumbsup:
OMG -- well, that may nix that idea. The RM was at the limit of tolerance for me.
 
#4 ·
You could just shift the factory seats on the rails back farther... Shouldn't be too hard. My 80 T/A can put the seat back enough that it is hard for me at 5'11" to reach the gas pedal!

I have found that I like it a tad closer when I am driving a little more aggressively (not that any of us do....) so I can put far more leverage on the brake and make it easier to get to WOT.... :) But in traffic I tend to get my right leg pretty sore (the tendin over the ankle on top of my foot, to the lower shin hurts bad in traffic....
 
#5 ·
Not sure how to do that. When the seat is in the full length position it is at the end of the rails. Don't really want to poke holes to move the rails back.
 
#9 ·
Yes, we also have both. In front, they're identical but the Buick's seats do go back a tad further (or at least it feels that way due to the different seats, etc.). In back, the Fleetwood's extra length is essentially added right in the back door and floor area, so the extra 6" or so is right there--and very noticeable. The Roadmaster is still nice back there because of a deep floor well, but the Fleetwood has a lot more open space and feels positively huge in comparison.
 
#10 ·
RM power seats right? Wonder if they are different seat supplier. Most GM is Leer IIRC.
 
#11 ·
RM power seats right? Wonder if they are different seat supplier. Most GM is Leer IIRC.
Yes. It is not just the Roadmaster. The Caprice and Impala also has more leg room for the front passengers, the seats go back farther.
 
#13 ·
If I remember correctly, the dashes hang pretty low on the RM and FWB, and the firewall is fairly close.
 
#14 ·
Yes, and moreso with the frame underneath and V8/trans protruding backward, the floor space is very "short" and not deep. I've become very used to it, but was SHOCKED after a month of my '07 Malibu rental and I climbed back in...I kept wanting to put the seat back further or pound out the floor in front of me. Perfect example of how a lot of FWD, unibody vehicles have much deeper, longer front footwells...that car easily had twice the front legroom feeling all due to depth.

These cars are huge, and RM to FW, back seat is where the stretch shines. When my grandparents were down over the summer, I drove them and my grandmother kept saying "THIS is how you travel" when she sat in the back...it's just huge.

I'm always in the front and often forget how large the limo is behind my seat...
 
#15 ·
I hate to say it, but I still think my 91 Deville had more room in back....
 
#16 ·
Those had a heck of a lot of legroom too, but you sit lower in those cars, so your legs go farther forward then in the FWB. In the FWB, either you sit higher or the floorwell is deeper, so you legs are angled more sharply downward.
 
#17 ·
The seats are higher, because the floor is higher, but at the same time, the front floor wells are rather compact and intruded on by the guts below and in front. So what you get is a closed in effect from above and below, at least in front. In back, the B/D cars still seem very spacious and have nice floorwell depth, unlike in front.

Cars vary a lot in this regard, for sure.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top